Canadian firearms licensing

[ryoder 1,590]

Interesting.
I thought it was much more difficult:

http://thewalrus.ca/hello-to-arms/

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Here are the rules for transportation and storage.

Keep in mind that all handguns fall under the restricted category.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/storage-entreposage-eng.htm

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Having been someone who has actually attended one of these firearms courses in Canada I have first hand knowledge of what is required to obtain a license and the article you linked was reasonably accurate as to my own experience. I did however only pursue the "Possessions and Acquisitions License" (PAL) as the "Restricted Possessions and Acquisitions License" (RPAL) felt far more intrusive than I was willing to put myself through. I was not particularly happy with the paperwork application where the government essentially put themselves in your bedroom the way they demanded the consent of a spouse. But then again I suppose the spouse of the applicant does have the right to know that their significant other is applying for the ability to legally possess firearms. However the biggest part of the application I have issues with was with the "Have you lost your job in the last three years" questions of the application. This I found to be highly offensive and just shows how out of touch the bureaucracy is with the rest of us who live in the real world. Of course I have lost my job. I am a contract software developer. I have worked at more than 25+ different organizations since the mid 1980s. Typically I am hired to develop a product. Once it is built there is no need for me to stick around unless the organization wants to develop another product, So I pack my bags and seek employment with another organization. But this sort of reality is foreign to the government pencil pushers who have only ever worked at one job their entire life and seem to think everyone who loses their job is at risk of being some sort of homicidal maniac. So naturally I lied on this portion of the paperwork. Why put myself through more BS than what I was already having to deal with.

PS: If anyone wants to know how to handle job loss, talk to me. I am an expert on the topic. The secret is, is to not think of yourself as a victim, stop your whining, get off of your rear end and find another job for crying out loud. If I can do it 25+ times you can do it once. Oh and the firearms course I took was great. They taught me how to safely handle all sorts of different firearms and I would highly recommend anyone new to firearms also take a similar course. It may just save yours or someone else's life.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[champu 1]

Most of that seems pretty reasonable, but you start to lose me at the "Authorization to Transport" thing. I looked into it a bit and it appears you can file a sort of recurring one for up to five years (saying, more or less, "On weekends I take these specific hand guns and/or rifles with barrels shorter than 18.5 inches to Joe Smith's shooting range.") So depending on how general they let you be and what the turnaround time is, it could range from not being too big of a deal to being an enormous PITA/restriction.

But, let's assume it's executed well, the data is kept secure, etc... what does this accomplish?

Picture a few scenarios, and see if/how requiring or not requiring a person to have an ATT (on top of all the licensing and safety course stuff) affects the situation. I have five scenarios to consider; these really apply to the evaluation of any prophylactic criminal law.

1) The person who is not out to do anything we're trying to prevent, and who goes through whatever troubles are necessary to comply with the law while carrying through with it anyway.

2) The person who is not out to do anything we're trying to prevent, and wants to comply with the law, but who changes their behavior because the law makes something too much of a pain in the ass.

3) The person who is not out to do anything we're trying to prevent, but who just says "to hell with that, I just won't get caught."

4) The person who is out to do bad things who will comply with all prophylactic laws, but then commit a "primary" crime (e.g. murder/assault/armed robbery) anyway.

5) The person who is out to do bad things and says, "I don't think I'm going to get caught for the primary crime, it's even easier to not get caught breaking the prophylactic laws."

The common terse arguments just focus on one of these groups (e.g. 5: "criminals don't obey laws" or 3: "you're just making criminals out of honest citizens" or 2: "fewer guns is better"), but any added law really creates all these groups for better and for worse. If the "for better" doesn't really add up then you need to reconsider having the law.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

So naturally I lied on this portion of the paperwork.

If, depending on your technical legal status, (etc., blah blah), you were deemed an independent contractor, then you'd be self-emplyed, in which case it wasn't a lie.

OTOH, if you did lie on the application, then (a) that itself is probably a criminal offense, and (b) the license was never truly valid; and if you're caught (even if not likely), then any possession will be retroactively illegal, too. Pretty gutsy. But hey, we're all risk-takers, right? I mean, eh?

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Most of that seems pretty reasonable, but you start to lose me at the "Authorization to Transport" thing.

Some of Canada's gun laws are reasonable. I have no problems with the training and testing aspects of the laws. In fact the training for those new to firearms is a good idea. Even the storage aspects of the laws are reasonable. But the transportation of restricted firearms is asinine. Ownership of a restricted firearm (a hand gun or one of those scary looking black guns even though they are no more harmful than a non-restricted hunting rifle) is just not worth the headaches the bureaucracy has put in place surrounding the transportation of these classes of firearms. One thing is funny though. While it is highly recommended NOT to do this. In Canada it is perfectly legal to be carrying a non-restricted firearm (a hunting rifle or a shotgun) in the open walking down a busy street, just as long as the firearm is not loaded, is not being pointed at anyone and you are in possession with the appropriate paper work. Of course who in their right mind would want to do this, except of course if their vehicle broke down and they did not want to leave the firearm in the vehicle if it's presence could not be hidden from plain view.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[gunpaq 1]

Actually for long guns you can own some weapons here that will get you twenty years in the states. My complaint as a competitve handgun shooter is that anyone who owns a handgun is considered a potential criminal and you are not allowed to fire you handun on your own property..........you are required to have a transportation permit and only permitted to fire it at an approved range.

www.geronimoskydiving.com

[champu 1]

Is it feasible to establish a private, approved range on your own property? (Or do they make that cost prohibitive, contingent on signatures of everyone within 100 miles of you, etc.)

[CanuckInUSA 0]

You can fire non-restricted firearms on your own property if it is a safe location (such as rural properties), but no you can not use a restricted firearm on your own property, never, ever regardless of how safe and remote your property may be. Another asinine aspect of the laws.

Oh and I was wrong earlier when I said the storage requirements were fine. The storage requirements for a non-restricted firearm are fine, but the requirements for restricted firearms once again are just plain dumb. You need two locks on the firearm for restricted firearms whereas you only need one lock on the non-restricted versions. A lock can be a few things. A lock can be a trigger lock, a lock on the breech, a locked storage cabinet or a locked room. But why two locks? A restricted firearm is no more dangerous than the non-restricted variety. Once again why two locks? Just plain dumb.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[SkyDekker 1,465]

CanuckInUSA

You can fire non-restricted firearms on your own property if it is a safe location (such as rural properties), but no you can not use a restricted firearm on your own property, never, ever regardless of how safe and remote your property may be. Another asinine aspect of the laws.

Oh and I was wrong earlier when I said the storage requirements were fine. The storage requirements for a non-restricted firearm are fine, but the requirements for restricted firearms once again are just plain dumb. You need two locks on the firearm for restricted firearms whereas you only need one lock on the non-restricted versions. A lock can be a few things. A lock can be a trigger lock, a lock on the breech, a locked storage cabinet or a locked room. But why two locks? A restricted firearm is no more dangerous than the non-restricted variety. Once again why two locks? Just plain dumb.

Why two locks? Because they want to make it as difficult as possible for you to own a restricted fire arm, while still claiming it is possible.

[gunpaq 1]

Here is smething very curious: A flintlock primitive pistol is a restricted firearm in Canada.

www.geronimoskydiving.com

[champu 1]

SkyDekker

Why two locks? Because they want to make it as difficult as possible for you to own a restricted fire arm, while still claiming it is possible.

This is basically what I hear every time a gun control politician/pundit mentions "common sense gun control measures."

Once a person who is going to do bad things and shouldn't have a firearm (regardless of how we decide to determine that) has a firearm, then they have it, and there's no way they give a shit about where you've told them they're allowed to bring it, how many locks they're supposed to put on it, or how they're supposed to have crippled it.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Why two locks? Because they want to make it as difficult as possible for you to own a restricted fire arm, while still claiming it is possible.

And how does this stop a criminal?

[aphid 0]

DaVinci

Quote

Why two locks? Because they want to make it as difficult as possible for you to own a restricted fire arm, while still claiming it is possible.

And how does this stop a criminal?

It doesn't.

It doesn't prevent legitimate ownership either.

It IS a nuisance. And there are a few who would foam at the mouth and rend their garments over such an inconvenience.

Canada isn't an island of unfettered "gun-control", any more than Canada has "free" health care.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

DaVinci

Quote

Why two locks? Because they want to make it as difficult as possible for you to own a restricted fire arm, while still claiming it is possible.

And how does this stop a criminal?

It doesn't. But look at gun crime in Toronto (5th largest metropolitan area in North America) and large cities in the US.

Compared to the US, we are doing something right. Is it due to limitations on hand guns? Who knows, but it doesn't appear to be hurting it.

[turtlespeed 226]

SkyDekker

***

Quote

Why two locks? Because they want to make it as difficult as possible for you to own a restricted fire arm, while still claiming it is possible.

And how does this stop a criminal?

It doesn't. But look at gun crime in Toronto (5th largest metropolitan area in North America) and large cities in the US.

Compared to the US, we are doing something right. Is it due to limitations on hand guns? Who knows, but it doesn't appear to be hurting it.

It's because it's too freaking cold to go outside and do harm!

J/k

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[champu 1]

aphid

It IS a nuisance. And there are a few who would foam at the mouth and rend their garments over such an inconvenience.

As I've said over and over, it's not illegal to BASE jump in US National Parks, all you have to do is get a permit. Based on what I've read about the history of approved ranges, licensing, and ATT in Canada over the last decade or so it sounds a bit messy.

As discussed in the "hate crime" thread, the behavior people have come to expect from county sheriffs, district attorneys, prosecutors, etc. who act as the subjective arm of poorly-worded (or just poorly-conceived) laws varies greatly based on geography. So one person may see a law and say, "I don't see the issue, if you're not being an ass you're going to be left alone" and they may be completely right. Another may see the same law and say, "Hell no, the DAs here are going to go on a rampage with this in their tool belt" and they may also be completely right.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

champu

***It IS a nuisance. And there are a few who would foam at the mouth and rend their garments over such an inconvenience.

As I've said over and over, it's not illegal to BASE jump in US National Parks, all you have to do is get a permit. Based on what I've read about the history of approved ranges, licensing, and ATT in Canada over the last decade or so it sounds a bit messy.

As discussed in the "hate crime" thread, the behavior people have come to expect from county sheriffs, district attorneys, prosecutors, etc. who act as the subjective arm of poorly-worded (or just poorly-conceived) laws varies greatly based on geography. So one person may see a law and say, "I don't see the issue, if you're not being an ass you're going to be left alone" and they may be completely right. Another may see the same law and say, "Hell no, the DAs here are going to go on a rampage with this in their tool belt" and they may also be completely right.

Exactly why I don't think DAs, judges or sherrifs should be elected.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Compared to the US, we are doing something right. Is it due to limitations on hand guns? Who knows, but it doesn't appear to be hurting it.

Without knowing the reason you really can't make that statement with any validity.

I did a study one day. I found that Countries with homogenous cultures normally had lower violence than Countries that had a mix of cultures and races. I took that and looked at several States and then Cities in the US and found that race has a lot to do with violence.

Now, some might claim that means race is the factor.... But I am not saying that. There could be many other factors such as economic opportunity, education..... Lots of possible factors. So many that it honestly became difficult to continue to even identify one to track.

There is some evidence that temperature plays a factor. There are fewer killings in Chicago in the Winter than the Summer. In reality, most likely because people are not mixing in the Winter as much.... But that being said, it could help explain why a cold climate has less gun problems that a warmer climate.

One last thing.... Canada to my knowledge has pretty much legalized pot. For all you know it could be the lack of drug pushers that makes Canada safer. Or simply stoned people don't fight as much

All I am saying here is you can't claim that 'lack of guns does not hurt'. You simply are making a wild guess.

[aphid 0]

I'm not weighing in on the debate, but I do wish to correct some continuing errors of assumption by our American friends

DaVinci

Quote

Compared to the US, we are doing something right. Is it due to limitations on hand guns? Who knows, but it doesn't appear to be hurting it.

Without knowing the reason you really can't make that statement with any validity.

I did a study one day. I found that Countries with homogenous cultures normally had lower violence than Countries that had a mix of cultures and races. I took that and looked at several States and then Cities in the US and found that race has a lot to do with violence.

Visible minorities in Canada, when added to the aboriginal and Inuit peoples amount to 23.4% according to census calculations as recent as 2011. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada)

By comparison, the USA census currently reports officially 20% visible minorities within their borders. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States#White_Americans)

We are as racially and culturally diverse as you, such that your correlation would seem invalid.

DaVinci

Quote

Canada to my knowledge has pretty much legalized pot. For all you know it could be the lack of drug pushers that makes Canada safer.

Actually, no we haven't. On two separate occasions (2002 & 2004), federal politicians have failed to decriminalize simple posession in modest quantities. "Challenges to cannabis laws at the federal level have not resulted in the deletion of the appropriate articles from the Criminal Code of Canada and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Police and prosecution services in other Canadian jurisdictions still pursue criminal charges for cannabis possession." (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_Canada)

DaVinci

Quote

All I am saying here is you can't claim that 'lack of guns does not hurt'. You simply are making a wild guess.

As mentioned above, I'm not weighing in on this very tiresome topic. I'll invite SkyDekker to validate his own opinion should he choose.

John

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

We are as racially and culturally diverse as you, such that your correlation would seem invalid.

1. There are more Countries than the US and Canada.

2.
Canada: British Isles origin 28%, French origin 23%, other European 15%, Amerindian 2%, other, mostly Asian, African, Arab 6%, mixed background 26%

US: white 79.96%, black 12.85%, Asian 4.43%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.97%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.18%, two or more races 1.61% (July 2007 estimate)

And using the CIA data, Canada has a higher MIXED, but that does not mean non-homogenous. In fact a mix is more homogenous.

Quote

Actually, no we haven't. On two separate occasions (2002 & 2004), federal politicians have failed to decriminalize simple posession in modest quantities.

From your own source: Superior and appellate courts in Ontario have repeatedly declared Canada's cannabis laws to be of no force and/or effect if a prescription is obtained

Do you care to do the comparison on convictions in Canada and the US for pot as a rate?

[aphid 0]

DaVinci

Quote

We are as racially and culturally diverse as you, such that your correlation would seem invalid.

1. There are more Countries than the US and Canada.

2.
Canada: British Isles origin 28%, French origin 23%, other European 15%, Amerindian 2%, other, mostly Asian, African, Arab 6%, mixed background 26%

US: white 79.96%, black 12.85%, Asian 4.43%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.97%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.18%, two or more races 1.61% (July 2007 estimate)

And using the CIA data, Canada has a higher MIXED, but that does not mean non-homogenous. In fact a mix is more homogenous.

***Actually, no we haven't. On two separate occasions (2002 & 2004), federal politicians have failed to decriminalize simple posession in modest quantities.

From your own source: Superior and appellate courts in Ontario have repeatedly declared Canada's cannabis laws to be of no force and/or effect if a prescription is obtained

Do you care to do the comparison on convictions in Canada and the US for pot as a rate?

1) The post I responded to specifically singled out Canada by name and comparison.

2) You said in that post:
"I found that Countries with homogenous cultures normally had lower violence than Countries that had a mix of cultures and races."
Then later responded to the data I cited with:
"Canada has a higher MIXED, but that does not mean non-homogenous. In fact a mix is more homogenous."
I'd listen to clarification of the apparent contradiction of the two statements. Am I missing something?

3) "Superior and appellate courts in Ontario have repeatedly declared Canada's cannabis laws to be of no force and/or effect if a prescription is obtained" Meaning simple possession without prescription is still prosecutable. That is not to say that our police services sweat the little stuff...

4) There is no debate from me on this matter. Your country incarcerates exponentially higher numbers for marijuana possession. Actually, I think (without checking) your country incarcerates at exponentially higher rates for any offense. I am willing to be corrected if mistaken.

If you recall, I was attempting only to clear up some common mis-statements about Canada as I'm not the least interested in engaging in the discussion arising from the OP.

John

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

1) The post I responded to specifically singled out Canada by name and comparison.

Yes, but only if you ignore most of the post does it apply. "One last thing.... Canada to my knowledge has pretty much legalized pot. For all you know it could be the lack of drug pushers that makes Canada safer. Or simply stoned people don't fight as much"

You ignored the point about "There is some evidence that temperature plays a factor. There are fewer killings in Chicago in the Winter than the Summer."

The fact is there are plenty of factors and to ignore all of them and make a blanket claim like "Lack of guns does not hurt" is dishonest at best.

Quote

2) You said in that post:
"I found that Countries with homogenous cultures normally had lower violence than Countries that had a mix of cultures and races."
Then later responded to the data I cited with:
"Canada has a higher MIXED, but that does not mean non-homogenous. In fact a mix is more homogenous."
I'd listen to clarification of the apparent contradiction of the two statements. Am I missing something?

" Of the same or similar nature or kind". You have a 66% European heritage and a 26% mixture of most likely European heritage with only a 6% of "other". So if a husband is from England and the mother from France..... The child would fit into "other" but still be of European background.

Compare the violence rate of say Sweden to say Bosnia.

Quote

3) "Superior and appellate courts in Ontario have repeatedly declared Canada's cannabis laws to be of no force and/or effect if a prescription is obtained" Meaning simple possession without prescription is still prosecutable. That is not to say that our police services sweat the little stuff...

Which in essence makes it not a big issue in Canada.

Quote

If you recall, I was attempting only to clear up some common mis-statements about Canada as I'm not the least interested in engaging in the discussion arising from the OP.

And to engage you had to latch onto two sections of a five part post:

1. Culture
2. Economics
3. Education
4. Weather
5. Drugs

And compare those two sections to Canada alone while ignoring the other three.

While we are at it.... We could also look at population density. There are plenty of studies that show cities above 750k are much more likely to have higher crime rates than below that number.

My point is simply trying to point at one made up data point is silly at best.

[aphid 0]

DaVinci

The fact is there are plenty of factors and to ignore all of them and make a blanket claim like "Lack of guns does not hurt" is dishonest at best.

That speculation was proffered by a different poster in the thread, not me. Perhaps that is leading to some confusion? I'll say it again - I have zero interest in that part of the discussion.

To repeat: if you read my post carefully, I intentionally said I was limiting my reply to statements that (imho) mis-characterized two items regarding Canada.

Quote

So if a husband is from England and the mother from France..... The child would fit into "other" but still be of European background.

Never thought I'd see the day when somebody would suggest that English and French Canadians would blend well with each other. Excepting skydiving and hockey, we unfortunately haven't experienced tremendous success at harmony between these two disparate groups.

Quote

3) "Superior and appellate courts in Ontario have repeatedly declared Canada's cannabis laws to be of no force and/or effect if a prescription is obtained" Meaning simple possession without prescription is still prosecutable. That is not to say that our police services sweat the little stuff...

***Which in essence makes it not a big issue in Canada.

In purely relative terms, I agree with that statement.

You initially wrote though;

Quote

Canada to my knowledge has pretty much legalized pot.

No, we haven't. . Call it splitting hairs if you will, but all I ask is folks be a little more careful with incorrect information about us up here.

Quote

And to engage you had to latch onto two sections of a five part post:

1. Culture
2. Economics
3. Education
4. Weather
5. Drugs

And compare those two sections to Canada alone while ignoring the other three.

Again, I intentionally said I was limiting my reply to statements I perceived that referred to Canada. For a variety of reasons, I don't give two hoots about the American gun debate.

Quote

My point is simply trying to point at one made up data point is silly at best.

I think it was SkyDekker that made the comment; "Lack of guns does not hurt". Perhaps your debate is with him.

Regards

John

[Skyrad 0]

ryoder

Interesting.
I thought it was much more difficult:

http://thewalrus.ca/hello-to-arms/

Its even easier in the UK to get a legal firearm believe it or not. No course, no test just fill out the application form with two referees and a few quid. A firearms officer comes round to your house and checks that you have a properly secured gun cabinet and you get your licence through the post a few days later.
It is possible to have certain hand guns mainly black powder oh and this (mostly in .44 Magnum):

http://www.arrse.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=74808&d=1336562468

We can have semi auto longs in 22 regardless of magazine capacity, or how the rifle looks. We can also have .50 Cal rifles, .223 straight pull (no other restriction). Also semi auto shotguns with no magazine capacity limit on a FAC. So yes you can have a Saiga 12 Bore with a 50 round mag firing slugs so this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejy58DCoYKE

Is UK legal.

As is this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGUDX_Vg_LY

As is this:

http://www.accuracyinternational.com/cssimages/AW50.png

And the Police recommend that you get a moderator/Suppressor for your firearm and are happy to for you to have them.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca